RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)

"Dolly, Martin C, ALABS" <mdolly@att.com> Sat, 11 November 2006 06:12 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gim63-0007BU-Mo; Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:12:07 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gim60-0006tS-L2; Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:12:04 -0500
Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com ([216.82.241.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gim5x-0004Uk-C0; Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:12:04 -0500
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: mdolly@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1163225520!12088986!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [134.24.146.4]
Received: (qmail 4492 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2006 06:12:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO attrh9i.attrh.att.com) (134.24.146.4) by server-9.tower-121.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 11 Nov 2006 06:12:00 -0000
Received: from attrh.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by attrh9i.attrh.att.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kAB65KaS018265; Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:05:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com (ocst08.ugd.att.com [135.38.164.13]) by attrh9i.attrh.att.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kAB64p88018149; Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:05:03 -0500 (EST)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:10:51 -0600
Message-ID: <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A017101B71CE@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <45553601.3070706@employees.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
Thread-Index: AccFOY3XXVn4X/5ySIif/AYEX1U1eAAHlhrA
From: "Dolly, Martin C, ALABS" <mdolly@att.com>
To: "Scott W Brim" <swb@employees.org>, "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
Cc: "Robert G. Cole" <robert.cole@jhuapl.edu>, ietf@ietf.org, ieprep@ietf.org, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <ieprep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ieprep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ieprep-bounces@ietf.org

For one, I have yet to see a B2BUA (SBC) in any IETF document. They are
in every service provider network. So, not to reflect them is an
illusion as best. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott W Brim [mailto:swb@employees.org] 
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:31 PM
To: Sam Hartman
Cc: Dolly, Martin C, ALABS; Janet P Gunn; Robert G. Cole; ietf@ietf.org;
ieprep@ietf.org; Scott Bradner; Fred Baker; Pekka Savola
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency
Preparedness (ieprep)

On 11/09/2006 18:43 PM, Sam Hartman allegedly wrote:
>>>>>> "Scott" == Scott W Brim <swb@employees.org> writes:
> 
>     Scott> However, it is important that the IETF not *just* do
>     Scott> protocols.  The IETF needs to consider how proposed
>     Scott> "architectures" fit in with all the other requirements on
>     Scott> the Internet.  The IETF doesn't do protocol engineering, it
>     Scott> does Internet engineering.  It is fine for other
>     Scott> organizations (not necessarily SDOs) to do service
>     Scott> requirements and scenarios.  They can *propose*
>     Scott> architectures.  If the IETF can support those architectures
>     Scott> in ways that are consistent with overall Internet design,
>     Scott> then fine.  Otherwise the IETF should not be restricted to
>     Scott> just protocol extension/definition.  The IETF has to think
>     Scott> of a bigger picture.
> 
> 
> Completely agree.  I'd rather see architectures and systems proposed
> elsewhere, reviewed by the ietf, and then us develop the protocols.
> There may be some cases where we do architecture work; I don't think
> this is one of them.

Please help me figure out the essential differences between
"architecture" that should be done in the IETF and "architecture" that
can be done elsewhere.

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep